|
Post by cabbageboy on Jan 8, 2013 19:17:07 GMT -5
Yeah at the end of the day I thought Punk's promo was typical WWE heel junk, albeit with more insider references than most. It was typical "you fans suck and are stupid" type fare. I'd like to see a heel that was a heel due to his lowlife actions first and not just the same putdowns of the fans.
That said, I will make a prediction: The Rumble crowd is going to turn on The Rock and cheer Punk. I'm talking like 80/20 here. When that match finally arrives the fans in the building will realize exactly what is going on here. On one hand there's a WWE champ who has held the belt for 434 days, worked hard, even overcome knee surgery to keep his run going. On the other hand you have a Hollywood actor walking in off the street after wrestling once in the past year and getting a wholly undeserved title shot. Further, it is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that Punk is purely there to job to Rock so that Cena can get the win back from Rock at WM. Is there anyone who seriously wants to see, well, ANY of this happen?
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,146
|
Post by fw91 on Jan 8, 2013 19:21:27 GMT -5
That said, I will make a prediction: The Rumble crowd is going to turn on The Rock and cheer Punk. I'm talking like 80/20 here. When that match finally arrives the fans in the building will realize exactly what is going on here. On one hand there's a WWE champ who has held the belt for 434 days, worked hard, even overcome knee surgery to keep his run going. On the other hand you have a Hollywood actor walking in off the street after wrestling once in the past year and getting a wholly undeserved title shot. Further, it is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that Punk is purely there to job to Rock so that Cena can get the win back from Rock at WM. Is there anyone who seriously wants to see, well, ANY of this happen? nah, can't see this happening. its wishful thinking, and I would like to see it happen, but I don't think Rock will ever get booed unless there in Chicago
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 8, 2013 19:40:04 GMT -5
He was saying Vince wants people that act stupid over people who can wrestle, how does that make it fake? If the guy making the matches doesn't put wrestlers in matches how can they win? That's not implying its fake, it's implying Vince and the fans don't care about wrestling and wrestlers but entertainers which was the whole point of his rant. Because Tyson Kidd is still put in matches against main eventers and loses? Everyone wrestles everyone on the roster, no one is not given some sort of match. Sorry but you're making huge jumps with this. a) His whole promo was that all wrestlers say they do it for the crowd but that is a lie. They go in the ring to be the best and make money but you cannot do that because there is a glass ceiling in place and you cannot crack that glass ceiling unless you go out and pander to the fans. That HBK, Edge, Roddy Piper and all the greats talk about doing this for the fans but they are full of shit and just used the fans to get to the top because Vince McMahon doesn't care about wrestling and wrestlers but entertainment and entertainers. b) Punk never said Tyson is better than anyone. As a matter of fact, he never once said one person was better than another except for him. The closest he came to saying anyone was better than anyone else was when he said Daniel Bryan never had anyone in the back care about him until he developed a catchphrase despite being one of the best. He said Tyson was a workhorse that never gets opportunities because he doesn't shuck and jive, talk to imaginary people or have a catchphrase, that he just lets what he does in the ring speak for itself. As a matter of fact, he never once said or implied things were scripted, he said the only way to make money was to pander to the crowd. That what you did between ropes doesn't matter because you will hit a glass ceiling unless can sell shirts or make the crowd laugh. Finally to the absurd part, when has Tyson Kidd ever had a match against an actual main eventer? Let me answer that for you, Monday May 10, 2010 against Miz and at that time Miz wasn't in the main events yet (and I am only using Miz because he main evented a WM, using someone that hasn't dropped down the card like an anvil and it's never happened). If you want to bring up wins and losses, in 2012, he has a 37% winning percentage compared to at Dolph 34% and Miz 33% but who gets TV time and title matches? profightdb.com/wrestlers/tyson-kidd-1814.html?pg=4
|
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 8, 2013 19:57:48 GMT -5
It does make me wonder what all the people who hate catchphrases and personalities and 'entertainment' actually originally liked about WWF/E in the first place. If you don't like all of that and agree with CM Punk's character then why would you be attracted to WWE?
Not to say WWE has never given us great action between the ropes but for as long as most people here have been alive WWE has been all about personalities, catchphrases and gimmicks.
That's why I think it's weird when people say there is 'some truth' to Punk's promo. If you think that then how have you ever found WWE entertaining? Surely the aim of Punk's promo was to make us all think "wait a minute he's telling us we're stupid for enjoying the past 20+ years. BOOOOOO!" but most people seem to have taken from it "wait a minute, he's right WWE is and always has been crap. YAAAAAAAAAAY!".
The aim was to criticise us for something there is no shame in liking and thus get heat. Instead people seem to have just adjusted their opinions to what Punk's character said.
Once again I'll say, very interesting and clever promo. But didn't quite get the intended reactions either from the live crowd or otherwise it seems.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 8, 2013 20:31:54 GMT -5
It does make me wonder what all the people who hate catchphrases and personalities and 'entertainment' actually originally liked about WWF/E in the first place. If you don't like all of that and agree with CM Punk's character then why would you be attracted to WWE? Not to say WWE has never given us great action between the ropes but for as long as most people here have been alive WWE has been all about personalities, catchphrases and gimmicks. That's why I think it's weird when people say there is 'some truth' to Punk's promo. If you think that then how have you ever found WWE entertaining? Surely the aim of Punk's promo was to make us all think "wait a minute he's telling us we're stupid for enjoying the past 20+ years. BOOOOOO!" but most people seem to have taken from it "wait a minute, he's right WWE is and always has been crap. YAAAAAAAAAAY!". The aim was to criticise us for something there is no shame in liking and thus get heat. Instead people seem to have just adjusted their opinions to what Punk's character said. Once again I'll say, very interesting and clever promo. But didn't quite get the intended reactions either from the live crowd or otherwise it seems. ALL of wrestling has been about great characters and promos, to go along with the action in between the ropes. What some people feel is that WWE, which even at the height of its "cartoony-ness" in the 80's still felt like a rewarding viewing experience, has simply lost its way in general. Granted, outside of the Hulkamania days I can't claim to have ever been a huge WWE fan, so maybe it doesn't all apply to me. But there DID seem, in the older days, to be more of an appreciation for guys who were "good hands" in the ring, whereas the past decade or so seems to be a nonstop struggle and search to find "the next Austin" or "the next Rock".
|
|
|
Post by lewis1711 on Jan 8, 2013 20:40:29 GMT -5
The job of a wrestling promo is to sale a match.. RR is bought by me off the strength of this promo. This. I went from "don't give a f***" to "I *have* to see this!" It was a brilliant promo, and this is from a guy who hates long promos. I was hooked on every word. I don't give two shits whether the crowd didn't like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 20:58:11 GMT -5
It does make me wonder what all the people who hate catchphrases and personalities and 'entertainment' actually originally liked about WWF/E in the first place. If you don't like all of that and agree with CM Punk's character then why would you be attracted to WWE? Not to say WWE has never given us great action between the ropes but for as long as most people here have been alive WWE has been all about personalities, catchphrases and gimmicks. That's why I think it's weird when people say there is 'some truth' to Punk's promo. If you think that then how have you ever found WWE entertaining? Surely the aim of Punk's promo was to make us all think "wait a minute he's telling us we're stupid for enjoying the past 20+ years. BOOOOOO!" but most people seem to have taken from it "wait a minute, he's right WWE is and always has been crap. YAAAAAAAAAAY!". The aim was to criticise us for something there is no shame in liking and thus get heat. Instead people seem to have just adjusted their opinions to what Punk's character said. Once again I'll say, very interesting and clever promo. But didn't quite get the intended reactions either from the live crowd or otherwise it seems. ALL of wrestling has been about great characters and promos, to go along with the action in between the ropes. What some people feel is that WWE, which even at the height of its "cartoony-ness" in the 80's still felt like a rewarding viewing experience, has simply lost its way in general. Granted, outside of the Hulkamania days I can't claim to have ever been a huge WWE fan, so maybe it doesn't all apply to me. But there DID seem, in the older days, to be more of an appreciation for guys who were "good hands" in the ring, whereas the past decade or so seems to be a nonstop struggle and search to find "the next Austin" or "the next Rock". I think people who got into wrestling were much younger and now they want some sophistication in their characters. It's cool to have personalities and even some catchphrases, but while that stuff worked in the 80's and 90's, it really needs to change with the times.
|
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 8, 2013 21:06:09 GMT -5
ALL of wrestling has been about great characters and promos, to go along with the action in between the ropes. What some people feel is that WWE, which even at the height of its "cartoony-ness" in the 80's still felt like a rewarding viewing experience, has simply lost its way in general. Granted, outside of the Hulkamania days I can't claim to have ever been a huge WWE fan, so maybe it doesn't all apply to me. But there DID seem, in the older days, to be more of an appreciation for guys who were "good hands" in the ring, whereas the past decade or so seems to be a nonstop struggle and search to find "the next Austin" or "the next Rock". I think people who got into wrestling were much younger and now they want some sophistication in their characters. It's cool to have personalities and even some catchphrases, but while that stuff worked in the 80's and 90's, it really needs to change with the times. I just feel like that's what WWE's brand of wrestling IS. Catchphrases and gimmicks and such like. That is still what gets over and that is still what's fun. Just because Punk's character says it's all wrong doesn't mean it is. Daniel Bryan for example. A real highlight of last year, because he added a fun gimmick and catchphrases to his already fantastic ring work. Everyone loved it! But then people start changing their opinions because Punk says it's wrong. I feel like that Punk promo should be revered for being a great heel promo. But instead people are acting as if he's correct. When he really isn't correct which is the whole point. Punk himself is someone that has always had catchphrases and has gimmicked his real life beliefs for the benefit of us as fans. And we love it! So why now pretend we don't because CM Punk(in kayfabe!) has told us we shouldn't love that and we should want something else instead?
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Jan 8, 2013 21:11:43 GMT -5
I am still not impressed with Punk, and really was a little disappointed with the Rock. Punk is more like the Honky Tonk man than anyone else-who was also "The Greatest of all time" Intercontinental title edition. He even had the greasy hair
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 21:14:18 GMT -5
That said, I will make a prediction: The Rumble crowd is going to turn on The Rock and cheer Punk. I'm talking like 80/20 here. Chicago and maybe the Hammerstein Ballroom are the only places in the world where Punk would be cheered even 60/40 over Rock. Stone Cold Steve Austin and Undertaker are probably the only people at this point who people would cheer over Rock on a regular basis. On one hand there's a WWE champ who has held the belt for 434 days, worked hard, even overcome knee surgery to keep his run going. On the other hand you have a Hollywood actor walking in off the street after wrestling once in the past year and getting a wholly undeserved title shot. Further, it is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that Punk is purely there to job to Rock so that Cena can get the win back from Rock at WM. Is there anyone who seriously wants to see, well, ANY of this happen? A whole lot of WWE fans? Like, specifically the ones who are more likely to order shows? Seriously, you don't think the majority of WWE fans want to see Rock win the title at the Rumble? And the very same WWE fans who made Rock-Cena the most profitable match of all time…you don't think they would pay to see it again?? I mean it's not like sequels to big hits ever make any money in the entertainment industry… For every realistic potential PPV customer thinking along the lines of "Screw Rock, he's only worked one match this year and doesn't deserve the title" or "Screw Rock-Cena, we seen it last year", there are probably ten who would purchase the Rumble and 'Mania specifically for those things. When he's on the show, Rock is the biggest star they have so of course the majority of fans will want him to win the title at the Rumble. As for Rock-Cena 2, Rock has more fans than any of WWE's part time attractions and Cena has more fans than any of WWE's full time attractions. To suggest fans wouldn't want to see them again is just ludicrous based on that fact alone before you even begin to consider that basically every huge match in wrestling history has had a rematch (sometimes more than one) that made tons of money. Each guy probably only has one other opponent who they could even possibly hope to make more money with than the other guy: for Cena a match with Undertaker and for Rock a match with Brock. The scenario you just described pretty much IS 90% guaranteed to be the direction which most fans would want, and therefore more importantly pay, to see over the next 3 months. There's a reason they announced that Rock would challenge for the title a year in advance. Because most fans would look forward to it. And there's a reason Rock-Cena 2 is the match that's been speculated about for months and predicted to be this year's 'Mania main event. Because most people know Vince only cares about money and out of the realistic main event candidates this year, that’s the match that would probably entice the most fans to order the show.
|
|
|
Post by Big Kahuna Burger on Jan 8, 2013 21:57:12 GMT -5
There's a glass ceiling in this company! People like me (longest reigning WWE Champion in modern history) are being held down, man! Punk fans at home: it's so true, man. It's so true! ;D
|
|
|
Post by CourtesyFlush on Jan 9, 2013 0:16:14 GMT -5
Only good thing he said was about Daniel Bryan having catchphrases.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,014
|
Post by nate5054 on Jan 9, 2013 0:23:18 GMT -5
I enjoyed the back and forth between the two. It really is two guys on the top of their game. Punk's seriousness is about as good as I've ever seen (in terms of people cutting a serious promo), and Rock is his typical self.
Yeah, the whole cookiepus or whatever it was chant was lame as hell, but Rock's delivery IMO is the GOAT in pro wrestling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2013 0:59:56 GMT -5
What confuses me about all this was I don't think he mentioned Colt Cabana a single time during this RAW.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jan 9, 2013 1:16:01 GMT -5
It does make me wonder what all the people who hate catchphrases and personalities and 'entertainment' actually originally liked about WWF/E in the first place. If you don't like all of that and agree with CM Punk's character then why would you be attracted to WWE? I'll answer this from my own perspective. Today's promos and pandering seem scripted and phony. It is all written in one terrible hive-mind voice (the writers write jokes in only one universal style and apply it to everyone), and there is no true structure to the product. They just wrestle aimlessly for no real reason. People can get title shots just by calling out people. Pre-cued music and pyro in spontaneous situations. Invisible camera. It all destroys the suspension of disbelief needed that always made the sport successful. It is NOT a variety show, and should not be. A writer's mindset should be: "How do we make this wrestling more entertaining?"; not "how can we get a bit of wrestling into this entertainment?" Characters need to be organic and at least somewhat morally consistent. John Cena as a character has Bi-Polar disorder. He makes no sense, hoots and hollers over things that don't matter, and smiles at things that should make him rightfully angry or upset. He changes on a whim, and has no discernible set characteristics. WWE writes him to suit THEIR direction. They don't write a situation, and say "Ok, how does a John Cena deal with this?" Remember the look on Hogan's face when he saw Honky and the Harts beating down Macho in 1987 when Liz dragged him from the back? That's wrestling. A big cartoon hero, who fights for what's right (fights for your life, huh!). Hogan had character flaws, sure. Like an inability to see betrayal coming, and a strange tendency to overreact to being eliminated from a battle royal. But you knew who he was. Old WWF vs today's WWE, is like the difference's pointed out in Plinkett's Star Wars trilogy reviews. Love them or hate them, for twenty plus years, you knew who characters were, and what they stood for. You knew how they'd react, and you felt a genuine sense of caring or dislike for them. There is no such connect in today's WWE. It's manufactured, micromanaged and sanitized for soulless mass production. Even the announcers don't call matches in lieu of telling "stories". It's contrived bullshit, with brief flashes of brilliance that occasionally remind you what was once great. I want organic characters back. People who stood for something, good or bad and reacted in ways, while still campy and cartoony, that was at least somewhat relatable. Hulk Hogan didn't dump shit on Andre for beating him for the belt. Macho Man Savage and Bret Hart didn't come out and do bad stereotype Sheamus-style comedy to sell rivalries. Austin didn't smile when Vince screwed him over. He was angry every time, and when he destroyed something of Vince's, Vince deserved it. Today's WWE has no such consistency. The Heels are sympathetic Wile E. Coyote's who try real hard and fail, and faces are mary-sue poochie-booked Road Runners. It's irritating. I like catch-phrases and promos and (organic) comedy like one-off insults (like Austin's "I can whip your ass backwards." I don't want legends dancing, and guys who are just good hands mocked for being boring. These are my issues.
|
|
|
Post by Aaron E. Dangerously on Jan 9, 2013 1:30:33 GMT -5
I think the promo was pretty good. Original enough. But let's be honest, we're all gonna forget about it within a year, or at least the common mark will. Short term memory is a bitch. People remember the phrase "pipe bomb" but they don't know what Punk even said last time.
|
|
|
Post by lewis1711 on Jan 9, 2013 2:14:55 GMT -5
It does make me wonder what all the people who hate catchphrases and personalities and 'entertainment' actually originally liked about WWF/E in the first place. If you don't like all of that and agree with CM Punk's character then why would you be attracted to WWE? I'll answer this from my own perspective. Today's promos and pandering seem scripted and phony. It is all written in one terrible hive-mind voice (the writers write jokes in only one universal style and apply it to everyone), and there is no true structure to the product. They just wrestle aimlessly for no real reason. People can get title shots just by calling out people. Pre-cued music and pyro in spontaneous situations. Invisible camera. It all destroys the suspension of disbelief needed that always made the sport successful. It is NOT a variety show, and should not be. A writer's mindset should be: "How do we make this wrestling more entertaining?"; not "how can we get a bit of wrestling into this entertainment?" Characters need to be organic and at least somewhat morally consistent. John Cena as a character has Bi-Polar disorder. He makes no sense, hoots and hollers over things that don't matter, and smiles at things that should make him rightfully angry or upset. He changes on a whim, and has no discernible set characteristics. WWE writes him to suit THEIR direction. They don't write a situation, and say "Ok, how does a John Cena deal with this?" Remember the look on Hogan's face when he saw Honky and the Harts beating down Macho in 1987 when Liz dragged him from the back? That's wrestling. A big cartoon hero, who fights for what's right (fights for your life, huh!). Hogan had character flaws, sure. Like an inability to see betrayal coming, and a strange tendency to overreact to being eliminated from a battle royal. But you knew who he was. Old WWF vs today's WWE, is like the difference's pointed out in Plinkett's Star Wars trilogy reviews. Love them or hate them, for twenty plus years, you knew who characters were, and what they stood for. You knew how they'd react, and you felt a genuine sense of caring or dislike for them. There is no such connect in today's WWE. It's manufactured, micromanaged and sanitized for soulless mass production. Even the announcers don't call matches in lieu of telling "stories". It's contrived bulls***, with brief flashes of brilliance that occasionally remind you what was once great. I want organic characters back. People who stood for something, good or bad and reacted in ways, while still campy and cartoony, that was at least somewhat relatable. Hulk Hogan didn't dump s*** on Andre for beating him for the belt. Macho Man Savage and Bret Hart didn't come out and do bad stereotype Sheamus-style comedy to sell rivalries. Austin didn't smile when Vince screwed him over. He was angry every time, and when he destroyed something of Vince's, Vince deserved it. Today's WWE has no such consistency. The Heels are sympathetic Wile E. Coyote's who try real hard and fail, and faces are mary-sue poochie-booked Road Runners. It's irritating. I like catch-phrases and promos and (organic) comedy like one-off insults (like Austin's "I can whip your ass backwards." I don't want legends dancing, and guys who are just good hands mocked for being boring. These are my issues. I would like to nominate you for president of all professional wrestling. That was brilliantly put.
|
|
|
Post by The Portable Stove on Jan 9, 2013 2:36:17 GMT -5
There's a glass ceiling in this company! People like me (longest reigning WWE Champion in modern history) are being held down, man! Punk fans at home: it's so true, man. It's so true! ;D Think maybe he was talking about BEFORE that. Which is the whole point of the promo, he was being held down until he decided to do something about it, and when he did, he didn't do anything to open doors for anyone else but himself. Also, the main point that, many are forgetting is that Punk does NOT want our acceptance. He doesn't want anyone to nod and say "I agree", because then we're agreeing that yes, we're simpletons who will cheer if he came in and slept with our mothers, sisters, girlfriends and dedicate it to us. Just because he said "Hey, this one's for you buddy!" Being a good guy for three years didn't work. Being a dirty rotten scoundrel didn't work. He made his biggest wave pretending to be an anti-hero and as a result, he cut a Punk-shaped hole through the glass ceiling and sealed it right back up and is trying his damndest not to get shoved back down at the expense of everyone else, fans and wrestlers alike.
|
|
|
Post by ireekofawesomeness on Jan 9, 2013 6:27:11 GMT -5
I'll answer this from my own perspective. Today's promos and pandering seem scripted and phony. It is all written in one terrible hive-mind voice (the writers write jokes in only one universal style and apply it to everyone), and there is no true structure to the product. They just wrestle aimlessly for no real reason. People can get title shots just by calling out people. Pre-cued music and pyro in spontaneous situations. Invisible camera. It all destroys the suspension of disbelief needed that always made the sport successful. It is NOT a variety show, and should not be. A writer's mindset should be: "How do we make this wrestling more entertaining?"; not "how can we get a bit of wrestling into this entertainment?"
Characters need to be organic and at least somewhat morally consistent. John Cena as a character has Bi-Polar disorder. He makes no sense, hoots and hollers over things that don't matter, and smiles at things that should make him rightfully angry or upset. He changes on a whim, and has no discernible set characteristics. WWE writes him to suit THEIR direction. They don't write a situation, and say "Ok, how does a John Cena deal with this?"
Remember the look on Hogan's face when he saw Honky and the Harts beating down Macho in 1987 when Liz dragged him from the back? That's wrestling. A big cartoon hero, who fights for what's right (fights for your life, huh!). Hogan had character flaws, sure. Like an inability to see betrayal coming, and a strange tendency to overreact to being eliminated from a battle royal. But you knew who he was. Old WWF vs today's WWE, is like the difference's pointed out in Plinkett's Star Wars trilogy reviews. Love them or hate them, for twenty plus years, you knew who characters were, and what they stood for. You knew how they'd react, and you felt a genuine sense of caring or dislike for them. There is no such connect in today's WWE. It's manufactured, micromanaged and sanitized for soulless mass production. Even the announcers don't call matches in lieu of telling "stories". It's contrived bulls***, with brief flashes of brilliance that occasionally remind you what was once great.
I want organic characters back. People who stood for something, good or bad and reacted in ways, while still campy and cartoony, that was at least somewhat relatable. Hulk Hogan didn't dump s*** on Andre for beating him for the belt. Macho Man Savage and Bret Hart didn't come out and do bad stereotype Sheamus-style comedy to sell rivalries. Austin didn't smile when Vince screwed him over. He was angry every time, and when he destroyed something of Vince's, Vince deserved it. Today's WWE has no such consistency. The Heels are sympathetic Wile E. Coyote's who try real hard and fail, and faces are mary-sue poochie-booked Road Runners. It's irritating.
I like catch-phrases and promos and (organic) comedy like one-off insults (like Austin's "I can whip your ass backwards." I don't want legends dancing, and guys who are just good hands mocked for being boring. These are my issues. [/quote]
this is the single most intelligent and well thought out/written post i have ever come across on this board...dead serious...
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 9, 2013 8:55:01 GMT -5
It does make me wonder what all the people who hate catchphrases and personalities and 'entertainment' actually originally liked about WWF/E in the first place. If you don't like all of that and agree with CM Punk's character then why would you be attracted to WWE? I'll answer this from my own perspective. Today's promos and pandering seem scripted and phony. It is all written in one terrible hive-mind voice (the writers write jokes in only one universal style and apply it to everyone), and there is no true structure to the product. They just wrestle aimlessly for no real reason. People can get title shots just by calling out people. Pre-cued music and pyro in spontaneous situations. Invisible camera. It all destroys the suspension of disbelief needed that always made the sport successful. It is NOT a variety show, and should not be. A writer's mindset should be: "How do we make this wrestling more entertaining?"; not "how can we get a bit of wrestling into this entertainment?" Characters need to be organic and at least somewhat morally consistent. John Cena as a character has Bi-Polar disorder. He makes no sense, hoots and hollers over things that don't matter, and smiles at things that should make him rightfully angry or upset. He changes on a whim, and has no discernible set characteristics. WWE writes him to suit THEIR direction. They don't write a situation, and say "Ok, how does a John Cena deal with this?" Remember the look on Hogan's face when he saw Honky and the Harts beating down Macho in 1987 when Liz dragged him from the back? That's wrestling. A big cartoon hero, who fights for what's right (fights for your life, huh!). Hogan had character flaws, sure. Like an inability to see betrayal coming, and a strange tendency to overreact to being eliminated from a battle royal. But you knew who he was. Old WWF vs today's WWE, is like the difference's pointed out in Plinkett's Star Wars trilogy reviews. Love them or hate them, for twenty plus years, you knew who characters were, and what they stood for. You knew how they'd react, and you felt a genuine sense of caring or dislike for them. There is no such connect in today's WWE. It's manufactured, micromanaged and sanitized for soulless mass production. Even the announcers don't call matches in lieu of telling "stories". It's contrived bulls***, with brief flashes of brilliance that occasionally remind you what was once great. I want organic characters back. People who stood for something, good or bad and reacted in ways, while still campy and cartoony, that was at least somewhat relatable. Hulk Hogan didn't dump s*** on Andre for beating him for the belt. Macho Man Savage and Bret Hart didn't come out and do bad stereotype Sheamus-style comedy to sell rivalries. Austin didn't smile when Vince screwed him over. He was angry every time, and when he destroyed something of Vince's, Vince deserved it. Today's WWE has no such consistency. The Heels are sympathetic Wile E. Coyote's who try real hard and fail, and faces are mary-sue poochie-booked Road Runners. It's irritating. I like catch-phrases and promos and (organic) comedy like one-off insults (like Austin's "I can whip your ass backwards." I don't want legends dancing, and guys who are just good hands mocked for being boring. These are my issues. Glad you wrote this. A major factor it seems that almost every wrestling company has to come to grips with today is that, yes, in the late 90's the industry let the cat out of the bag. Paul Heyman pushed storylines that seemed steeped in reality and wrestlers' real lives, the nWo tried to come off as a "shoot invasion" of WCW, and Vince finally went on TV and said outright that wrestling isn't real. The response by writers and bookers since then, though? Not particularly positive. Wrestling was over the top and gimmick-filled going all the way back to the 1950's and the advent of a TV in every home. Wrestlers have been cutting promos and playing up their personalities for as long as promoters have been there to say "cut a promo on so-and-so, I need you to sell tickets". However it feels that the industry's response to kayfabe's official death has been misguided at best, destructive at worst. So much of wrestling now seems to be about smiling and winking at a knowing audience, playing up in-jokes or absurdity (like the infamous "invisible camera") at the expense of achieving strong suspension of disbelief. In my humble opinion, this stems from wrestling no longer having a culture of "will this sell tickets?". Hell, wrestling barely even seems to have a "will this increase ratings?" mentality anymore, even though that mentality is a lot more short-sighted and potentially destructive than the ticket selling mentality. Take the example you pointed out: Liz leads Hogan out to save Macho from Jimmy Hart's stable of goons, and Hogan walks out, looks up, and gets a stunned look on his face, not believing what he's seeing, that Honky and the Harts are viciously attacking a defenseless Randy Savage. Does that take much to do? No, but it's infinitely more real, because what's more likely? Hogan standing by and watching everything that goes on on every single show, or Hogan just being backstage and preparing for his own match, or minding his own business? It's the latter, easily, especially because if you want it to be the former, then you open the door to fans wondering why he doesn't come out and help EVERYBODY who gets attacked. So here's big, cartoony superhero Hulk Hogan, but he's acting this way in an attempt to work the crowd and sell the situation as at least somewhat realistic. The crowd won't likely sit around questioning the logic of the segment too much, and is more likely to continue allowing their suspension of disbelief. Cued up pyros/entrance music, invisible cameras, and knowing nods and winks to the audience do the exact opposite: they drive home "this is fake, you guys, nothing works like this." And if you're going to emphasize that to us, why on God's green Earth should I feel invested enough to dedicate 2-7 hours of TV time a week, or hundreds of dollars in ticket/PPV purchases a year, to following you?
|
|